MAYOR MARCEL PAN, REPRESENTING THE MUNICIPALITY OF GOA, (Enciso), who were permanent employees assigned at the various
who were permanent employees assigned at the various departments of the
CAMARINES SUR v. YOLANDA PEÑA, MARIVIC ENCISO, MELINDA
CANTOR, ROMEO ASOR and EDGAR ENCISO
February 13, 2009 | Carpio-Morales, J. |
Digester: Aspi, Maria Margarita
SUMMARY: Petitioner Mayor Pan initiated a reorganization of the local government
of the Municipality of Goa, Camarines Sur. As a result of the organization, a total of 31
employees, including respondents, were separated. Respondents applied for the newly
created positions in the LGU’s new organization and staffing pattern but their
application was not approved. Instead, the mayor appointed other people to fill up the
ranks. Respondents filed an appeal with the CSC. CSC found for respondents.
According to the CSC, the separation of respondents was in violation of the provisions
of R.A. 6656 (Act to Protect the Security of Tenure of Civil Service Officers and Employees in the
Implementation of Government Reorganization of 1988). Accordingly, they should be reinstated
or reappointed to their former positions or their equivalent under the new staffing
pattern without loss of seniority rights and shall be paid backwages from the time they
were separated until their actual reinstatement. SC agreed with the CSC. Mayor Pan did
not comply with the provisions of R.A. 6656 in effecting respondents’ separation from
service. Moreover, the Municipality of Goa undertook the reorganization in bad faith.
DOCTRINE: A reorganization “involves the reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or
abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions.” It alters the existing structure
of government offices or units therein, including the lines of control, authority and
responsibility between them to make the bureaucracy more responsive to the needs of
the public clientele as authorized by law. It could result in the loss of one’s position
through removal or abolition of an office. For a reorganization for the purpose of
economy or to make the bureaucracy more efficient to be valid, however, it must pass
the test of good faith, otherwise it is void ab initio.
FACTS:
 Municipality of Goa, Camarines Sur Mayor Marcel Pan initiated a reorganization of
the local government, allegedly due to the large budgetary deficit of the
municipality brought about by a bloated bureaucracy.
 The Sangguniang Bayan (Sanggunian) passed Resolution No. 025-98 authorizing the
mayor to partly reorganize the bureaucracy. This resolution was amended by
Resolution No. 046-98 to give the mayor full authority to restructure the LGU.
 The Sanggunian created a Placement Committee via Resolution No. 054-98 to
oversee the LGU reorganization in terms of selection and placement of personnel,
in consonance with the procedures laid down in R.A. 6656, the Act to Protect the
Security of Tenure of Civil Service Officers and Employees in the Implementation of Government
Reorganization of 1988, and its implementing rules.
 Affected by this reorganization were respondents Yolanda Peña (Peña), Marivic
Enciso (Marivic), Melinda Cantor (Cantor), Romeo Asor (Asor) and Edgar Enciso
LGU but whose positions were abolished.1
 Respondents applied for the newly created positions in the LGU’s new
organization and staffing pattern.2
 The Placement Committee did not approve respondents’ applications. Instead, it
recommended, and the mayor appointed Evelyn Granadino, Salvacion Asor, Myrna
Macuja, Ma. Christina Mendoza and Mina Natalia Vargas to fill up the ranks.
 A total of 31 employees, including respondents, were separated.
 Respondents filed an appeal with the CSC. CSC found for respondents. The
separation of herein appellants was in violation of the provisions of R.A. No. 6656.
Accordingly, Peña, Marivic, Cantor, Asor and Enciso shall be reinstated or
reappointed to their former positions or their equivalent under the new staffing
pattern without loss of seniority rights and shall be paid backwages from the time
they were separated until their actual reinstatement. (See NOTES re: CSC’s
consideration of the qualifications of the parties.)
 Mayor filed an MR. He adduced additional evidence and grounds in support of his
decision not to appoint respondents, such as Peña’s poor job performance as
former waterworks supervisor resulting in financial losses; Cantor’s lack of actual
experience in the work of a revenue collections clerk; and Marivic’s, Asor’s and
Enciso’s failure to submit their respective performance evaluation reports for them
to be considered by the Placement Committee, as well as their questionable
promotions to their last stated positions.
 Mayor: when the present administration reorganized, the most affected department
was the Municipal Treasurer’s Office where Cantor, Asor and Marivic belonged, to
make the local treasury more viable. From 27 employees, this department was
reduced to 9 employees. Another office affected heavily by the reorganization is the
Waterworks operation where Peña and Enciso were formerly connected. From 8
employees, this office was trimmed down to 2 employees.
 MR denied.
 CA: sustained the CSC. MR denied.
 Mayor: insists that all those retained in the reorganization are permanent employees
holding permanent positions who are equally, if not better, qualified compared with
respondents. And he questions the conflicting actions of the CSC when it still
ordered the reinstatement of respondents despite its approval of the appointment
of the new appointees.
 Respondents: prefatorily contend that the petition calls for a re-assessment of the
evidence adduced before the CSC and the appellate court which this Court, so they
argue, is not permitted to do in the absence of any of the recognized exceptions.
RULING: Petition DENIED.
1 The positions held by respondents were: local revenue collection officer I (waterworks supervisor) for Peña;
utility worker II for Marivic; revenue collection clerk II for Cantor; utility worker II for Asor; and utility
worker I for Enciso.
2 Peña as cashier II; Marivic as local legislative staff or bookbinder; Cantor as revenue collection clerk; Asor as
local legislative staff; and Enciso as bookbinder.

Whether petitioner complied with the provisions of R.A. 6656 in effecting
respondents’ separation from service – NO.
Whether the Municipality of Goa undertook the reorganization in good faith –
NO.
 A reorganization “involves the reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition
thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions.” It alters the existing structure of
government offices or units therein, including the lines of control, authority and
responsibility between them to make the bureaucracy more responsive to the needs
of the public clientele as authorized by law. It could result in the loss of one’s
position through removal or abolition of an office. For a reorganization for the
purpose of economy or to make the bureaucracy more efficient to be valid,
however, it must pass the test of good faith, otherwise it is void ab initio.
 A reorganization is carried out in “good faith” if it is for the purpose of economy
or to make bureaucracy more efficient.
 No dismissal (in case of a dismissal) or separation actually occurs because the
position itself ceases to exist. Security of tenure would not be a Chinese wall.
 If the “abolition,” which is nothing else but a separation or removal, is done for
political reasons or purposely to defeat security of tenure, or otherwise not in good
faith, no valid “abolition” takes place and whatever “abolition” is done, is void ab
initio. There is an invalid “abolition” as where there is merely a change of
nomenclature of positions, or where claims of economy are belied by the existence
of ample funds.
 Section 2 of R.A. No. 6656 cites certain circumstances showing bad faith in the
removal of employees as a result of any reorganization.
Sec. 2. No officer or employee in the career service shall be removed except for a
valid cause and after due notice and hearing. A valid cause for removal exist when,
pursuant to a bona fide reorganization, a position has been abolished or rendered
redundant or there is a need to merge, divide, or consolidate positions in order to
meet the exigencies of the service, or other lawful causes allowed by the Civil
Service Law. The existence of any or some of the following circumstances
may be considered as evidence of bad faith in the removals made as a result
of the reorganization, giving rise to a claim for reinstatement or
reappointment by an aggrieved party:
a) Where there is a significant increase in the number of positions in the new
staffing pattern of the department or agency concerned;
b) Where an office is abolished and another performing substantially the
same functions is created;
c) Where incumbents are replaced by those less qualified in terms of
status of appointment, performance and merit;
d) Where there is a reclassification of offices in the department or
agency concerned and the reclassified offices perform substantially the
same functions as the original offices;
e) Where the removal violates the order of separation provided in Sec. 3
hereof.
 Sec. 3 provides for the order of removal of employees:
Sec. 3. In the separation of personnel pursuant to reorganization, the following
order of removal shall be followed:
(a) Casual employees with less than 5 years of government service;
(b) Casual employees with 5 years or more of government service;
(c) Employees holding temporary appointments; and
(d) Employees holding permanent appointments: Provided, That those in the
same category as enumerated above, who are least qualified in terms of
performance and merit shall be laid first, length of service notwithstanding.
 Petitioner claims that there has been a drastic reduction of plantilla positions in the
new staffing pattern in order to address the LGU’s gaping budgetary deficit. He
states that in the municipal treasurer’s office and waterworks operations unit where
respondents were previously assigned, only 11 new positions were created out of
the previous 35 which had been abolished; and that the new staffing pattern had 98
positions only, as compared with the old which had 129.
 The CSC, however, highlighted the recreation of 6 casual positions for clerk II and utility
worker I, which positions were previously held by respondents Marivic, Cantor,
Asor and Enciso. Petitioner inexplicably never disputed this finding nor proffered
any proof that the new positions do not perform the same or substantially the same
functions as those of the abolished. And nowhere in the records does it appear that
these recreated positions were first offered to respondents.
 The appointment of casuals to these recreated positions violates R.A. 6656, as Sec. 4
instructs that:
Sec. 4. Officers and employees holding permanent appointments shall be given
preference for appointment to the new positions in the approved staffing pattern
comparable to their former positions or in case there are not enough comparable
positions, to positions next lower in rank.
No new employees shall be taken until all permanent officers and employees
have been appointed, including temporary and casual employees who possess the
necessary qualification requirement, among which is the appropriate civil service
eligibility, for permanent appointment to positions in the approved staffing pattern,
in case there are still positions to be filled, unless such positions are
policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly technical in nature.
 In the case of respondent Peña, petitioner claims that the position of waterworks
supervisor had been abolished during the reorganization. Yet, petitioner appointed
an officer-in-charge in 1999 for its waterworks operations even after a supposed
new staffing pattern had been effected in 1998. This position of waterworks
supervisor does not appear in the new staffing pattern of the LGU. Apparently, the
Municipality of Goa never intended to do away with such position wholly and
permanently as it appointed another person to act as OIC vested with similar
functions.
 While the CSC never found the new appointees to be unqualified, and never
disapproved nor recalled their appointments as they presumably met all the
minimum requirements therefor, there is nothing contradictory in the CSC’s course
of action as it is limited only to the non-discretionary authority of determining whether
the personnel appointed meet all the required conditions laid down by law.
 The CSC can very well order petitioner to reinstate respondents to their former
positions (as these were never actually abolished) or to appoint them to comparable
positions in the new staffing pattern.
 The reorganization of the government of the Municipality of Goa was not entirely
undertaken in the interest of efficiency and austerity but appears to have been
marred by other considerations in order to circumvent the constitutional security of
tenure of civil service employees like respondents.

NOTES:
 Romeo Asor, 14 years in government service and with 112 training hours, applied
for local legislative staff, but was denied. Instead, Myrna Macuja, who has 3 years
government service was appointed. Mayor Pan’s only justification was that Asor
has no civil service eligibility. Records, [sic] show that Macuja also has no civil
service eligibility. He likewise did not dispute Asor’s allegation.
 Edgardo Enciso, a college level (engineering third year) [sic] who has 6 years
government service and with 16 training hours, applied for Bookbinder position,
but was denied. In his stead, Christina Mendoza, a graduate of midwifery, was
appointed. Again, Mayor Pan justified that Edgardo Enciso is non-eligible.
However, records reveal that Mendoza is likewise a non-civil service eligible. Under
the Qualification Standard (QS), civil service eligibility is not required for the said
position. Enciso’s allegation was also uncontested.
 Yolanda Peña, an Accounting graduate with Civil Service Eligibility (Professional)
and has been in the government service for 25 years and 289 hours of training [sic],
applied for Cashier II position. She was not appointed to said position and neither
to any position and, instead Evelyn Granadino who has only 11 years in the service
was preferred and appointed to Cashier II. The justification by Mayor Marcel Pan
for not appointing Peña to Cashier II is self-serving. There was no proof shown to
support his allegation that the Municipality of Goa incurred losses of P400,000.00
during Peña’s incumbency as Supervisor of Waterworks System.
 Marivic Enciso, who has been in the government service for 10 years & 8 months
and with 119 hours of training, applied for Local Legislative Staff and in the
alternative for Bookbinder but her application was denied. Instead, Myrna Macuja,
who is new in the service, was appointed. Natalia Vargas, who has seven years in
service, was appointed as Bookbinder. The only justification Mayor Pan gave for
not appointing [Marivic] was that the latter has no civil service eligibility. Records,
however, show that Macuja and Vargas also have no civil service eligibilities.
Further, Mayor Pan did not rebut [Marivic’s] allegation regarding Macuja[’s] and
Vargas’ length of service.
 Melinda Cantor, civil service eligible (Subprofessional) and who has 7 years
government service and 104 hours training, likewise applied for Clerk II position.
The same was denied. Instead, Salvacion Asor, with only 4 months government
service, and Fernando Pardinas and Leticia Parpan, both High School graduates
were appointed.